Re: [Qemu-devel] ivshmem property size should be a size, not a string

[Marc-André Lureau]

Hi

----- Original Message -----
> > "role" was designed to only migrate the master. Ability to migrate a pool
> > of
> > peer would be a significant new feature. I am not aware of such request.
> 
> I see.  But how is this supposed to work?
> 
> Before migration: one master and N peers connected to the server on host
> A, N>=0.
> 
> After migration: one master and N' of the N peers connected to the
> server on host B, N>=N'>=0, and the remaining N-N' peers still on host A
> with their ivshmem device unplugged.
> 
> How would I do this even for N'==0?  I can't see how I'm supposted to
> connect the migrated shared memory to a server on host B.

I am not sure I understand you.

You can't migrate the peers.

As I said, "ability to migrate a pool of peer would be a significant new 
feature".

> >> Did you try chardev=...,size=S, where S is larger than what the server
> >> provides?
> >
> > It will fall in check_shm_size().
> 
> Yes.  Called from ivshmem_read().  ivshmem_read() will then complain to
> stderr, close the file descriptor we got from the server and leave the
> BAR unmapped.  My question is how guests deal with that state.  Could be
> anything from "detect the device is broken and fence it" to "kernel
> panic".
> Whatever it is, it could easily also happen if the guest wins the race
> with the server and tries to use the device before it successfully got
> its shared memory from the server.

It's nothing bad from what I remember on qemu side. On guest side, it
depends how your driver/user is implemented I suppose. To me, it's not
a normal case, and the error should be enough to diagnose it.

> 1. Unless the guest can reliably detect the doorbell feature, the
>    doorbell feature is *broken*.
> 
>    As far as I can tell, a device with a doorbell behaves exactly like
>    one without a doorbell until it got its shared memory from the
>    server.  If that's correct, then doorbell detection is inherently
>    racy.

There are many ways you can do synchronization.
In test_ivshmem_server(), I trivially wait for the membar with the
required signature to be mapped. Verify that peers have different ids,
and then start using the doorbell. That seems good enough.

>    The only way to fix this in documentation is "broken, do not use".

It works fine in the tests. Feel free to point out races or other issues.

>    The maximally compatible way to fix this in code is to ensure the
>    guest can't read register IVPosition before we got the shared memory
>    from the server.  We can make realize wait, or the read.  The latter
>    is probably an even worse idea.
> 
>    An easier way to fix it in code is splitting up the device, so guests
>    can simply check the PCI device ID to figure out whether they have
>    one with a doorbell.
> 
>    An even easier way is dropping the doorbell feature outright.
> 
> 2. The UI is crap.
> 
>    We can fix this by rejecting nonsensical option combinations.

Yes, I think it's the simplest way for now. I dislike having to break stuff 
when you can overcome it with a few more checks.

>    However, the result will be more complex than splitting the device in
>    two so that nonsensical options combinations are simply impossible.

I disagree, adding more checks will add a few dozen lines with minimal impact. 
Splitting things will break stuff and require significant effort to share 
correctly what can be shared etc.

>    If we need to split it anyway to fix the doorbell, we can clean up
>    the UI at next to no cost.

I don't think the doorbell is broken.